Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.74 seconds)Mrs. Jamuna Uke vs State Of Chhattisgarh 121 ... on 3 November, 2017
In its decision, the court below observed that the case is being taken up for evidence and the plaintiff admitted that those documents are required for the decision of the aforesaid case. Most of the documents sought to be filed are those that were inspected by the counsel for the petitioner pursuant to the orders of the court. The court below further observed that most of the documents are in the knowledge of the plaintiff and no prejudice would be caused if they are bought on record. The court below relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Singh Vs. Mahendra Kumar reported in AIR 1964 SC 993 and in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy reported in 1995 (1) Civil Court Cases 91 (SC). The court below observed that the suit has to be decided on the basis of its merits and therefore the aforesaid documents be admitted subject to payment of cost.
Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy vs Billa Sanjeeva Reddy on 28 January, 1994
In its decision, the court below observed that the case is being taken up for evidence and the plaintiff admitted that those documents are required for the decision of the aforesaid case. Most of the documents sought to be filed are those that were inspected by the counsel for the petitioner pursuant to the orders of the court. The court below further observed that most of the documents are in the knowledge of the plaintiff and no prejudice would be caused if they are bought on record. The court below relied upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Singh Vs. Mahendra Kumar reported in AIR 1964 SC 993 and in the case of Billa Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Billa Sanjeeva Reddy reported in 1995 (1) Civil Court Cases 91 (SC). The court below observed that the suit has to be decided on the basis of its merits and therefore the aforesaid documents be admitted subject to payment of cost.
The Amending Act, 1897
Sarvesh Kumar vs Rohilkhand Educational Charitable ... on 28 May, 2010
This revision has been filed against the order dated 2.5.2016 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, Bareilly, whereby the application bearing Paper No. 146C filed by the defendant-respondent to bring some documents on record at the stage of evidence in Original Suit No. 468 of 2010 (Sarvesh Kumar Vs. Rohailkhand Educational Charitable Trust Bareilly and others) has been allowed.
Moti Lal Paswan vs Additional District Judge Court ... on 5 January, 2010
It is contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-revisionist that the order impugned permitted the filing of the evidence at the stage of evidence has been passed without taking into account the fact that Order 13 Rule 2 CPC had been deleted by the Amending Act No. 46 of 1999 with effect from 1.7.2002. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court reported in MANU/UP/1980/2005 in the case of Hoti Lal and others Vs. Additional District Judge and others, where the Court had observed that after the amendments no such discretion as provided in the unamended Rule 2 of Order 13 of CPC, is now left with the court as that provision no longer exists in the statute book.
1